OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.94/2014
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
Sri J.C.Das - Complainant
Doric Enclave
Zoo Tinali
R.G.Baruah Road
Guwahati-781024
-vs-
1) The Manager - Opp.parties
Sony Authorized Service Centre,
Rajgarh Main Road,
Guwahati-781024
2) The Managing Director,
Sony Communication Pvt.Ltd.
A-31,Mohan Co-Op.Industrial Estate,
B-Mathura Road,Delhi-110044
3) The Manager,
M/S Bharali Brothers Pvt.Ltd.
Eureka Tower,
Chandmari,Guwahati-781003
Appearance: Complainant himself conducted his case and Ld advocate Mr.M.K.Bora appears for the Opp.Party No.3.
Date of argument- 17.05.2017
Date of judgment- 1.06.2017
JUDGMENT
This is a case u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986.
1) The complaint filed by Sri J.C.Das was admitted on 14.10.14 and notices were issued to the opp.parties , but Opp.Party No.3 filed the written statement on 6.1.16 and Opp.Party No.1 & 2 side failed to take step and accordingly this proceeding is directed to run on exparte against the Opp.Party No.1 & 2 vide order dtd. 6.1.16. Thereafter, Opp.Party No.3 side cross-examined the complainant side witness, but Opp.Party No.3 failed to file affidavit and accordingly the stage of filing evidence by Opp.Party No.3 was closed on 23.2.2017 as they declined to file affidavit; and thereafter the day of 30.3.2017 was fixed for written arguments by the complainant and both the parties filed their respective written arguments and on the date fixed for oral argument i.e.17.5.17 the Opp.Party No.3 sides Ld.counsel Mr.M.K.Bora filed hazira, but he was not found after calling him and then we have heard oral argument of the complainant and fixed the day of 1.6.17 for delivery of judgment. We deliver the judgment today which is as below.
2) The gist of the pleading of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a Sony Xperia Z. Mobile bearing IMEI No. 35566675733982 from Opp.Party No.2 (Sony Communication Pvt. Ltd. Delhi) on 30.7.2014 for a sum of Rs.33,500/-, but after a few months of its purchase it developed hard-ware problem and it was not charged properly and then he immediately gave it to Opp.Party No.1 (Sony Authorized Service Centre, Rajgorh main Rd) for repairing on 8.9.2014, but they expressed their inability to repair the problem, rather offered to exchange it with a new set against payment of 50% of the cost of the similar set, the charging point of the new set was not damaged, but it must be a defect of manufacturer. The complainant was repeatedly requested corporate office, chief of sony India , but found no favoured response from them. He is extremely dis-appointed with the poor service given to him by the opp.party side and he also through e.mails requested thse opp.parties to redress his grievances on 22.9.14 and he also requested Opp.Party No.2 to give proper relief to him, but all of them declined to address his request and therefore, he is entitled to get direction from this forum to refund the price value of his hand-set which is Rs.33,500/- and also to pay him compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceeding and to apologize for all inconvenience causing to him.
3) By filing written statement, Opp.Party No.3 namely, M/S Bharali Brothers Pvt. Ltd. states that they are selling agent of the Sony’s product through their retail outlet situated at Chandmari, Guwahati; and they are not anyway responsible for any defect in the mobile handset and to meet grievances of the customer. It is fact that complainant purchased one Sony Xperia Z.Mobile bearing IMEI No. 35566675733982 from their outlet , but they are not anyway responsible for any mechanical and other defects occurred in the said mobile set. It is the duty of the manufacturers to rectify the defect occurred in the mobile handset. There is no deficiency in service on their part and there is not a single allegation against them.
4) From the evidence, it appears to us that the complainant Sri J.C.Das had, on 23.7.2014, purchased a Sony Xperia Z.Mobile bearing IMEI No. 35566675733982 from Opp.Party No.3 namely, M/S Bharali Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Chandmari, Guwahati for a sum of Rs.33,500/-(Rupees thirty three thousand five hundred)only which was manufactured by Opp.Party No.2 (Sony Communication Pvt.Ltd. A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, B, Mathura Road, Delhi. Secondly, it is also found that Opp.Party No.3 is the retailer of the mobile handsets of the brand purchased by the complainant.
5) The complainant, in his complaint and evidence, states that after a few months of purchase of the said handset, it developed hard ware problem resulting in not charging properly and then he gave it to Opp.Party No.1 (Sony Authorized Service Centre, Rajgorh Road, Guwahati) on 8.9.2014 for repair, but Opp.Party No.1 expressed their inability to repair the problem, rather offered to exchange it with a new set against payment of 50% of the cost of a similar set; and then he talked with the owner of Opp.Party No.1, who also repeated the same thing; and in result his mobile handset become non-functional in absence of charging and also become totally dead and not repairable. He further states that the charging pin inside the handset was in damaged state at the time of purchasing the said hand-set and such damage must be a defect of manufacture . We have found the written statement of Opp.Party No.3 that Opp.Party No.3 admits that the mobile handset purchased by the complainant from them is retaining certain defects , but for that defect, they are not responsible , however the manufacturer (Opp.Party No.1) is responsible for that; and their service centre in Guwahati are responsible to rectify the said defect in the said handset. From this version of Opp.party No.3 it is clear that a few months after purchasing of the alleged hand-set by the complainant from Opp.Party No.3, it was found the hand-set was not taking charge and became non-functional and it could not takes charge due to damage of charging pin; and that matter was reported to Opp.party No.3 (seller of the said hand-set) and Opp.Party No.1 (the service center (service centre of Opp.Party No.2). From the version of the complainant it is established that the charging pin of the said hand-set was not damaged due to mis-handling of the hand-set by the complainant, but the said damages is a retaining damage at the time of purchasing it by the complainant. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the alleged defect in the said hand-set is a manufacturing defect retained by it while it was sold by Opp.party No.3 to the complainant.
6) It is evident from the documents filed by the complainant particularly from Ext.1 that the said hand-set was purchased by the complainant from Opp.Party No.3 on 23.7.14 and the defect detected after a few months of its purchased. Thus, it is crystal clear that defect was detected within warranty period of one year.
From documents filed by the complainant it is found that the complainant, on 10.9.2014 (3.32 p.m.), through e.mail informed Opp.party No.2 (Sony Communication Pvt. Ltd.) that the mobile hand-set, he had purchased from Opp.party No.3, could not be charged on 8th Sep.2014 and then he visited Opp.party No.1(Sony’s authorized Service Centre, Rajgarh,Guwaahti) and the later diagnosed as breaking of a pin in the charging board which is not repairable, and hence they offered exchange with a new one on payment of 50% of the cost, and then he approached to Opp.party No.2 to give him proper relief. From the documents filed by the complainant it is also seen that the complainant again, vide e.mail dtd. 19.9.14, requested Opp.party No.2 to resolve the dispute speedily and then Opp.party No.2, Sony Care, vide e.mail dtd. 19th July ,2014 (3.39 p.m.) informed the complainant that they received his e.mail request which was registered as 21019754 and they would make every attempt to respond expeditiously. It is also seen that the complainant again on 26.9.2014, sent a notice of deficiency of service to Opp.party No.2 through which he requested to give him proper relief within ten days with a warning that if it was not done, he will file consumer case against them and then Opp.party No.2 vide letter dtd. 29th sep.2014 inform the complainant that they are unable to comply with his request and then the complainant again on 2.10.14 (10.23a.m.) inform Opp.party No.2 that due to manufacturing defect of his hand-set he had to suffer must and they were in deficiency in service and in result he will be compelled to approach proper forum for relief . Thus, it is established that the complainant informed Opp.party No.2 in different occasion that the mobile hand-set was purchased from Opp.party No.3 (retailer of Opp.party No.2) has manufacturing defect (damage in pin charge portan) and in result it stopped functioning after a few months of its purchase and he also requested Opp.party No.2 to give proper relief, but Opp.party No.2 has declined to give him proper relief. Therefore, we hold that by refusing to give proper relief to the complainant by Opp.party No.2 & 3, they committed deficiency of service towards the complainant and secondly, that opp.parties are liable to give proper compensation to the complainant for selling a defective hand-set to the complainant, which the opp.parties refused to repair free of cost or replace the same with a new one and therefore, Opp.Party No. 2 as a manufacturer of the said hand-set and Opp.party No.3 as seller of the said hand-set are jointly and severally liable to refund the value of the said hand-set to the complainant and they are also to pay compensation at least Rs.10,000/- for causing professional inconvenience to him and for putting him in mental agony to the complainant and also Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceeding.
7) In view of above discussion, the complaint, against Opp.party No.2 the managing director, (Sony Communication Pvt.Ltd. Delhi) is allowed on exparte, and against Opp.party No.3 (M/S Bharali Brother s Pvt. Ltd.) is allowed on contest, but against Opp.party No.1(Sony Authorized Service Centre, Rajgorh, Guwahati) is dismissed on exparte and accordingly Opp.party No.2 & 3 are directed to pay the price value of the defective hand-set i.e. Rs.33,500/- to the complainant and to take back the said defective hand-set and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing professional inconvenience and putting him in mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceeding, to which, they are jointly and severally liable. They are directed to satisfy the award within two months, in default of which the amounts shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from this date
Given under our hand and seal of the District Forum, on this the 1st day of June, 2017.
(Mrs. A. D. Lahkar) (Md.S.Hussain)
Member President
